Tuesday, April 16, 2013

Know-it-all Ruth Conniff

As a resident of Boston, may I kindly suggest the Ruth Conniff go f**k herself?

In the reality-based community, we call things what they are. Mumia? Political prisoner. Ruth Conniff wouldn't agree with that and has, over the airwaves, mocked the notion.

Ruth Conniff also took to the airwaves in 2006 to insist that she wasn't effected by the Iraq War because no one she knew served in it.

And now Ruth wants to talk to us about bombings that happened in my town?

Why doesn't she just shut her damn mouth?

Does she really think anyone needs to here from her?

She's not from Boston.

So shut up.

I am so sick of these insta-experts who feel they have a right to weigh in on everything.

What happened here was much scarier than what was on your TV, Ruth. Tell you what, when one of the security watches in your gated community shoots and kills a 'trespasser,' I'll wait a bit before I weigh in. Now do me the same and shut your mouth about my hometown. Okay?

We got both the papers today. I don't know if the Boston Herald was attempting to make an artistic statement or what but their photograph on the front page was marred by not being sharp. Again, it may have been an artistic choice.

In addition, though some of the devastation was shown, no victims were.

By contrast, the Boston Globe had a very sharp color photo on the front page and it showed victims -- to a degree, at least four are visible. In the foreground of the photo, you see a woman injured who's being treated by two men. They may or may not be trained medical. The photograph caption notes medical staff working on other victims. I'm not questioning the ability of the two, I am saying that the photo stands out because it captures the everyone-pitches-in nature.

I was so glad, as people poured in and out today, that no one said, "Oh, the Globe shouldn't have done that!" Because there are people who think the news needs to be censored.

There was no gore in that photo on the front page but the victims were visible -- especially the woman in the foreground. And I think victims do need to be visible in news coverage. I think when someone dies serving overseas, for example, that we dishonor him or her by refusing to note their passing.

It was an act of terrorism. By refusing to call it that, Barack created a sideshow where the coverage had to include a diversion into why wouldn't he call it what it is.

Only idiots like Ruth Conniff believe this doesn't matter. Everyone else knows that you first have to name it. That's true of any trauma.

Let's hope Know-it-all Ruth Conniff never decides to be a grief or rape counselor.

Tuesday, April 16, 2013. Chaos and violence continue, silence on
counter-insurgency continues, failure to speak on the topic fails both
Bradley Manning and WikiLeaks, an Iraqi governor survives an
assassination attempt, an Iraqi inspector general and his family flee in
the face of arrest warrants, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani is dismayed
by the situation in Iraq, and more.

April 8th, WikiLeaks published 1.7 million US diplomatic documents covering 1973 to 1976. Collin Gordinier (South Lyon East High School's East Edition) explains
this release has become known as the "Kissinger Cables" after Henry
Kissinger (Secretary of State in Richard Nixon's administration and then
Gerald Ford's administration) and quotes Kissinger bragging, "I used to
say [before the Freedom of Information Act], 'The illegal we do
immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer'. Now I'm
afraid to say things like that." The impact of the release was felt
then -- one government had a public servant exposed as a spy, the son of
a prime minister was in league with Big Business at the expense of his
own country, the Vatican was found to be a massacre denier and more.
The impact continues to be felt this week. Yesterday Marc Wells (WSWS) explored the Vatican aspect of the cables:

On September 11, 1973, a CIA-backed coup led by general Pinochet
overthrew the elected government of Socialist Party President Salvador
Allende. In Pinochet’s 17-year dictatorship, thousands of left-wing
activists, students, trade unionists and anyone suspected of opposing
Chilean and international capital were killed or disappeared by the
regime. Hundreds of thousands were jailed and tortured, or sent into
exile.The names of these criminal state operations, such as "Operation
Condor" or "The Caravan of Death" are forever embedded in the
consciousness of Chilean workers. Pinochet's "struggle against Marxism"
remains one of the most violent developments in the history of the 20th
century.The main goal of such struggle was to destroy the working class and
its organizations, both physically and through the imposition of
aggressive economic policies of privatization and deregulation. These
created a model of enrichment by a small oligarchy for the following
decades.Many governments joined this "struggle," with the US leading the
pack. President Richard Nixon and his National Security Adviser Henry
Kissinger allocated $8 million for the campaign to destabilize Allende.
While maintaining an appearance of liberal reforms and a more relaxed
policy toward the USSR initiated by John XXIII, the Vatican, led by Pope
Paul VI, lent support to the Chilean dictator.In a cable
dated October 18, 1973, Archbishop Giovanni Benelli, Vatican Deputy
Secretary of State, denied the crimes committed by Pinochet's junta,
expressing "his and Pope's grave concern over successful international
leftist campaign to misconstrue completely realities of Chilean
situation."More precisely, the cable documents Benelli's view on the
"exaggerated coverage of events as possibly greatest success of
communist propaganda, and highlighted fact that even moderate and
conservative circles seem quite disposed to believe grossest lies about
Chilean junta's excesses."

Press Trust India used the cables
Sunday to explore the relationship between Indian Prime Minister Indira
Gandhi and Richard Nixon (whom Nixon called an "old witch").

Right before those documents were released, WikiLeaks released US cables
from the last decade on Venezuela demonstrating how supposedly neutral
NGO (supposed Non-Governmental Organizations) enlisted in the US
government's war on the government of President Hugo Chavez. This week Ryan Mallett-Outtrim (Green Left) reported on those documents:The ultimate aims of the embassy were described by then-US ambassador
to Venezuela William Brownfield as "penetrating Chavez’s political base
... dividing Chavismo ... protecting vital US business ...[and]
isolating Chavez internationally".According to Brownfield, the "strategic objective" of developing
opposition-aligned "civil society organizations[sic] ... represents the
majority of USAID/OTI work in Venezuela".However, among the dozens of groups mentioned in the document, the usual suspects of US interventionism also make appearances.According to the document, OTI funded a Freedom House program in
Venezuela with US$1.1 million, while Development Alternatives Inc. (DAI)
provided grants totalling $726,000 on behalf of OTI.DAI has a long history of working to undermine governments that
oppose US hegemony, and this isn't the only time its operations in
Venezuela have raised questions.In 2002, DAI worked with the National Endowment for Democracy to fund
a right-wing propaganda campaign during the 2002 oil industry lockout
that sought to bring down Chavez’s government.The groups is now being sued by the family of a subcontractor who was jailed in 2009 while working in Cuba.Alan Gross was working with a USAID initiative to install satellite
communication systems for civil use, when he was arrested by Cuban
authorities for "acts against the integrity of the state", and is now
serving a 15-year prison term.His wife, Judy Gross has accused DAI of misleading him, and failing to provide adequate training.

In related news, the US government is attempting to punish whistle
blower Bradley Manning and to argue that because Osama bin Laden
reportedly had access to information -- that the whole world had -- this
demonstrates that Bradley was "aiding the enemy." As the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times observed earlier this month, "In arguing that Manning aided the enemy, the government's case
apparently will rest on the assertion that some WikiLeaks material made
its way to a digital device found in the possession of Osama bin Laden.
This is an ominously broad interpretation. By the government's logic,
the New York Times could be accused of aiding the enemy if Bin Laden
possessed a copy of the newspaper that included the WikiLeaks material
it published."

Bradley Manning and WikiLeaks are forever entwined. Monday April 5,
2010, WikiLeaks released US
military video of a July 12, 2007 assault in Iraq. 12 people were
killed in the assault including two Reuters journalists Namie Noor-Eldeen and
Saeed Chmagh. Monday June 7,
2010, the US military announced that they had arrested Bradley
Manning and he stood accused of being the leaker of the video. Leila Fadel
(Washington Post) reported in August 2010 that Manning had
been charged -- "two charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The
first encompasses four counts of violating Army regulations by transferring
classified information to his personal computer between November and May and
adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system. The second
comprises eight counts of violating federal laws governing the handling of
classified information." In March, 2011, David S. Cloud
(Los Angeles Times) reported
that the military has added 22 additional counts to the charges including one
that could be seen as "aiding the enemy" which could result in the death penalty
if convicted. The Article 32 hearing took place in December. At the start of
this year, there was an Article 32 hearing and, February 3rd, it was announced
that the government would be moving forward with a court-martial. Bradley has
yet to enter a plea. The court-martial was supposed to begin before the November 2012 election but it was
postponed until after the election so that Barack wouldn't have to run on a
record of his actual actions. Independent.ie adds, "A court martial is set to be held in June at Ford Meade in Maryland,
with supporters treating him as a hero, but opponents describing him as a
traitor." February 28th, Bradley admitted he leaked to WikiLeaks. And why.

Bradley Manning: In attempting to conduct counter-terrorism or CT and
counter-insurgency COIN operations we became obsessed with capturing and
killing human targets on lists and not being suspicious of and avoiding
cooperation with our Host Nation partners, and ignoring the second and
third order effects of accomplishing short-term goals and missions. I
believe that if the general public, especially the American public, had
access to the information contained within the CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A
tables this could spark a domestic debate on the role of the military
and our foreign policy in general as [missed word] as it related to Iraq
and Afghanistan.
I also believed the detailed analysis of the data over a long period of
time by different sectors of society might cause society to reevaluate
the need or even the desire to even to engage in counterterrorism and
counterinsurgency operations that ignore the complex dynamics of the
people living in the effected environment everyday.

Counter-insurgency is war on a native population. There's been
confusion in the '00s because the US government wanted to sell it.
Vietnam left counter-insurgency 'off the table' officially because it
was publicly reputed. When Reagan used it in the covert, dirty wars in
Latin America in the eighties, it would be 'off the books.' David
Petraeus and others sought to rehabiliate it in the '00s. That required
a lot of money and a lot of greedy academia desperate for that money.
Harvard's Carr Center is only one of the many institutions with blood on
their hands -- Sarah Sewall (aka Sarah Sewer) remains at the Carr
Center while Samantha Power 'graduated' to the Barack Obama
administration. Sewall
herself bragged at the end of 2007 that they could get a candidate to
say whatever they wanted which Charlie Rose found very amusing as long
as he and she didn't name the candidate (Barack). Along with the liars of acadmeia there have been the supposed journalists of 'independent' media like Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! who won't let counter-insurgency be mentioned unless its by CIA contractor Juan Cole. As Ava and I noted last month, in (mis)covering the documentary James Steele: America's Mystery Man In Iraq--
produced by BBC Arabic and the Guardian newspaper, she insisted that
the guest not use the term "counterinsurgency" and, at the end, when the
guest did bring it up, Goodman immediately changed the subject. She
was fine with presenting violence in Iraq as caused by the US --
provided it could be presented as random. But to actually note that it
was a pattern and a plan was too much for Amy Goodman. That's only
surprising if you missed how she supported the Libyan War and has
largely become a mouthpiece for the US government -- at least the CIA
faction. (If this is news to you, you haven't been paying attention and
can start getting up to speed by reviewing Bruce Dixon's 2011 piece for
Black Agenda Report: "Are Democracy Now!'s Libyan Correspondents Feeding Us the State Department and Pentagon Line on Libya?")

Counter-insurgency has been the least covered topic in the last ten
years despite the US government utilization of it. It's not been
covered because there's no money in telling the truth. Goody might lose
some of her campus bookings where she hawks her latest bad clip job.
The Nation has published only one article on the issue that matters and
they had to be shamed into publishing that. The article is "Harvard's Humanitarian Hawks" and it's by Tom Hayden.
He published it as his own site first and only after Katrina and others
were deluged with phone calls about why The Nation wasn't carrying that
article did they suddenly show interest.

Instead, they prefer to offer piffle like the crap William R. Polk penned as an open letter to Barack
where, in passing, he notes that the Pentagon Papers exposed
counter-insurgency as a failure. But he never condemns Barack's use of
it in his open letter. When I noted how little coverage there's been of
counter-insurgency, from time to time, a friend will bring up Ann
Jones. To which I reply, "I was trying to be nice.' Yes, Ann Jones did write about counter-insurgency in 2010:
"Taking a page from Vietnam, they claim their hands are tied, while the
enemy plays by its own rules. Rightly or wrongly, this opinion is
spreading fast among grieving soldiers as casualties mount. It's also
clear that even the lethal part of counterinsurgency isn't working."

A piece on counter-insurgency that uses terms like "rightly or wrongly,"
is cowardly. She never calls it out. The most she can muster is that
it's not working. We've defended Ann many times here but I'm not going
to defend her ethical cowardice. Shame on you, Ann, you damn well know
better.

Some friends point to Peter Rothberg's piece
which does liken it to torture. It also spells it correctly:
"counter-insurgency." That's how it's been spelled for decades before
the government decided to rebrand it KFC style. And that's part of the
reason we don't note Peter's piece. He notes it's torture. He's
right. But he wrote in 2004 and it was known to be used in Iraq or
anywhere else at that time. That's also why he spelled it correctly: he
was writing of it historically.

Or they'll note a John Nichols piece that fails to illuminate what
counter-insurgency is while also failing to condemn it. Those aren't
pieces that matter, those aren't pieces that show bravery. Bradley
Manning spoke out because what was going on in Iraq. But various
so-called 'independent' 'media' outlets don't want to have that
conversation.

While we're on the subject of The Nation magazine, we need to
note Greg Mitchell. The never-ending joke failed to cover WikiLeaks in
real time -- we did, we covered it here. We covered the Iraq
revelations and waited and waited for others to follow. But it was 2010
and outside the video, no one gave a damn in independent media. That's
among the reasons that we laughed at Idiot Greg when he suddenly
declared himself to be doing 'live blogging' on WikiLeaks. You live
blog an event -- a trial, a sports match. Just blogging about WikiLeaks
every day does not constitute live blogging -- other than you're
blogging and you are, yes, alive. What an idiot.

US (2009) US Special Forces counterinsurgency manual analysis

WikiLeaks released theForeign Internal Defense Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Special Forces
(1994, 2004) document, the official US Special Forces doctrine for
Foreign Internal Defense or FID.
FID operations are designed to prop up "friendly" governments facing
popular revolution or guerilla insurgency. FID interventions are often
covert or quasi-covert due to the unpopular nature of the governments
being supported.
The manual directly advocates training paramilitaries, pervasive
surveillance, censorship, press control and restrictions on labor unions
& political parties. It directly advocates warrantless searches,
detainment without charge and (under varying circumstances) the
suspension of habeas corpus. It directly advocates employing terrorists
or prosecuting individuals for terrorism who are not terrorists, running
false flag operations and concealing human rights abuses from
journalists. And it repeatedly advocates the use of subterfuge and
"psychological operations" (propaganda) to make these and other
"population & resource control" measures more palatable

And if you use the link they provide, you'll be taken to a report by WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange which opens:"[T]he psychological effectiveness of the CSDF concept starts by
reversing the insurgent strategy of making the government the
repressor. It forces the insurgents to cross a critical threshold-that
of attacking and killing the very class of people they are supposed to
be liberating. -- US Special Forces doctrine obtained by Wikileaks"So states the US Special Forces counterinsurgency manual obtained by Wikileaks, Foreign Internal Defense Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Special Forces (1994, 2004). The manual may be critically described as "what
the US learned about running death squads and propping up corrupt
government in Latin America and how to apply it to other places".
Its contents are both history defining for Latin America and, given the
continued role of US Special Forces in the suppression of insurgencies,
including in Iraq and Afghanistan, history making.
The leaked manual, which has been verified with military sources,
is the official US Special Forces doctrine for Foreign Internal Defense
or FID.
FID operations are designed to prop up "friendly" governments
facing popular revolution or guerilla insurgency. FID interventions are
often covert or quasi-covert due to the unpopular nature of the
governments being supported ("In formulating a realistic policy for the
use of advisors, the commander must carefully gauge the psychological
climate of the HN [Host Nation] and the United States.")
The manual directly advocates training paramilitaries, pervasive
surveillance, censorship, press control and restrictions on labor unions
& political parties. It directly advocates warrantless searches,
detainment without charge and (under varying circumstances) the
suspension of habeas corpus. It directly advocates employing
terrorists or prosecuting individuals for terrorism who are not
terrorists, running false flag operations and concealing human rights
abuses from journalists. And it repeatedly advocates the use of
subterfuge and "psychological operations" (propaganda) to make these and other "population & resource control" measures more palatable.

I'm sorry, Greg Mitchell, how can you set yourself as the go-to on all
things WikiLeaks and refuse to explore counter-insurgency? Answer: You
can't.

The hour-long film explores the arc of American counterinsurgency
brutality from Vietnam to Iraq, with stops along the way in El Salvador
and Nicaragua. James Steele is now a retired U.S. colonel who first
served in Vietnam as a company commander in 1968-69. He later made his
reputation as a military adviser in El Salvador, where he guided
ruthless Salvadoran death squads in the 1980s.When his country called again in 2003, he came out of retirement to
train Iraqi police commandos in the bloodiest techniques of
counterinsurgency that evolved into that country’s Shia-Sunni civil war
that at its peak killed 3,000 people a month. Steele now lives in a
gated golf community in Brian, Texas, and did not respond to requests
for an interview for the documentary bearing his name.

In June, Bradley faces military 'justice' and if you want to build
support for Bradley, you start explaining what took place, what made him
speak out. Not random death squads, but a plan -- while the US
government claimed to be in Iraq for 'democracy' -- to kill and suppress
the Iraqi people. This is what prompts outrage. This is what drives
Bradley to blow the whistle. And this same counter-insurgency was being
used in Afghanistan.

Do you stay silent or do you blow the whistle?

For Bradley, it was obvious, you blow the whistle about this program
being utilized in two different countries and you do it because you are
trying to protect millions of people in the process.

Do you stay silent or do you blow the whistle?

That's the question that so-called 'independent' media needs to ask
itself. They can start telling the truth about counter-insurgency or
they can continue the lie.

Will you stand up like Bradley Manning and call out counter-insurgency
or will you cower like Anatol Lieven did in 2010, writing for The Nation, "How the Afghan Counterinsurgency Threatens Pakistan." Bradley didn't decry a good or neutral policy that had a few bad impacts, he decried a criminal policy.

What Bradley did was very brave and very important.

We devalue the importance when we refuse to address counter-insurgency and we betray his bravery.

Last week, Steve Nelson (US News and World Reports) quoted former US House Rep Ron Paul:"While President Obama was starting and expanding unconstitutional wars
overseas, Bradley Manning, whose actions have caused exactly zero
deaths, was shining light on the truth behind these wars," the former
Republican presidential contender told U.S. News. "It's clear which
individual has done more to promote peace."

Press TV lied
today: "Looking at the situation in Iraq right now, it is very
interesting to
note that we are seeing the assassination of certain candidates that are
standing up in the country's provincial elections. Specifically those
that are showing leanings toward the government which is currently in
power in Baghdad." No, all 15 killed were Sunnis, not part of Nouri's
Shi'ite coalition. I said this morning that most were Iraqiya. Three
community members in Iraq e-mailed to state that the 15 were all under
the umbrella of Iraqiya. (Thank you for correcting me.)

Nouri's thugs aren't targeted, they're the ones doing the targeting.
Like the violence late today in Mosul. Mosul is in Nineveh Province.
Nineveh and Anbar Province are not being allowed to participate in the
elections. There's been no real outcry by this decision by Nouri. The
reason is because Nouri's very unpopular in these provinces where
protests have been going over 100 days against his regime. Iraq is
supposed to have a Independent High Electoral Commission. If elections
were to be postponed, it is the body that is granted the right to
postpone.

In yet another power-grab, Nouri declared that the provinces wouldn't
hold elections. He did that as 'commander-in-chief.' You know what
kind of a government allows a 'commander-in-chief' to declare elections
won't happen? A junta, a military junta. Even during the Civil War, US
President Abraham Lincoln did not halt elections.

But Nouri did and he appears to have gotten away with it. The residents
of the two provinces are not happy with this. The Governor of Nineveh
has been very vocal in his displeasure.

Governor Atheel al-Nujaifi is a prominent critic of Nouri al-Maliki.
al-Nujaifi is Sunni, a member of Iraqiya and the brother of Speaker of
Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi.

Among the politicians targeted by Nouri in the last three years? Atheel
al-Nujaifi. It wasn't all that long ago that Nouri was demanding that
al-Nujaifi resign. (al-Nujaifi refused.)

So it's no real surprise that today al-Nujaifi became the latest politician targeted for assassination. NINA reports that he survived a bombing attempt on his convoy in Mosul today. All Iraq News notes there were no "human casualties." Alsumaria adds that an investigation has been launched.

As the security situation continues to worsen, Mohammad Sabah (Al Mada) reports
that members of Parliament -- including from Moqtada al-Sadr's bloc --
are saying Nouri al-Maliki's refusal to appear before Parliament to
report on the security situation makes him a partner in terrorism. Alsumaria reports
that Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi noted the Iraqi security
forces are supposed to be better today than ever before and wonders why
they aren't able to repel the attacks?

Back in July, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observed,
"Shiite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has struggled to forge a lasting
power-sharing agreement and has yet to fill key Cabinet positions,
including the ministers of defense, interior and national security,
while his backers have also shown signs of wobbling support." If Barack
hadn't given Nouri a second term via The Erbil Agreement, the prime
minister of Iraq in 2010 would have had to have formed a full Cabinet --
no empty spaces. Nouri's failure to form a full Cabinet means he's
responsible for those empty positions. That means any security failures
-- including yesterday's -- rest squarely on his shoulders.Al Mada notes
that Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani is said to be more worried about
Iraq than ever before. The violence and the various political crises
have greatly alarmed al-Sistani. Callum Wood (Philadelphia Church of God's Trumpet) notes that, in 2003, the Trumpet's Gerald Flurry predicted where the war would leave Iraq.
Wood observes, "The U.S.-backed [Prime Minister] Nouri al-Maliki
originally promised a fair government, but has systematically destroyed
his opponents. Mr. Maliki has accused at least two key rivals of
terrorism, driving them into exile. Whether the claims are true or not,
they leave the Shiite government with little to no viable contenders
for power in the country."

In other news of violence, NINA reports
that 3 men and 1 woman have been sentenced to death by the Criminal
Court of Rusafa-Baghdad. Apparently, coming in third for 2012 wasn't
good enough [see Amnesty International released a new report [PDF format
warning] " Death Sentences and Executions in 2012" ], Iraq wants to be number one in 2013 with executions. Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reports that they executed 21 people today by hanging.

Meanwhile Saturday is when 12 of Iraq's 18 provinces get to vote. Alsumaria notes
some people will be voting in Nineveh -- as many as 2250 displaced
persons. Due to violence, they fled their own provinces. While
residents of Nineveh proper will not be voting, IDPs will be.

In labor news, Aref Mohammed (Reuters) reports, "Hundreds of local
protesters blocked a main entrance of Iraq's giant southern West
Qurna-2 oilfield on Tuesday, operated by Russia's LUKOIL,
demanding jobs in a sign of the growing challenges facing
foreign firms operating in the south."

Finally, Kitabat reports
that arrest warrants have been issued against the Inspector General for
the Ministry of Health and his wife; however, the two and their
children have apparently fled Iraq.